Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

A New Name for High-Fructose Corn Syrup

Would high-fructose corn syrup, by any other name, have sweeter appeal?

The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product.

“Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.”

According to the market research firm NPD Group, about 58 percent of Americans say they are concerned that high-fructose corn syrup poses a health risk.

Some scientists over the years have speculated that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function, but the research has been inconclusive. As a result, most leading scientists and nutrition experts agree that in terms of health, the effect of high-fructose corn syrup is the same as regular sugar, and that too much of either ingredient is bad for your health.

Marion Nestle, a professor in New York University’s department of nutrition and a longtime food industry critic, says that Americans consume too much of all types of sugar, but that there is no meaningful biochemical difference between table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.

“I’m not eager to help the corn refiners sell more of their stuff,” Dr. Nestle wrote in an e-mail. “But you have to feel sorry for them. High-fructose corn syrup is the new trans fat. Everyone thinks it’s poison, and food companies are getting rid of it as fast as they can.”

Dr. Nestle says she thinks the plural “corn sugars” is a better description of high-fructose corn syrup, which is actually a mixture of glucose and fructose. But she agrees that the corn refiners “have lots of reasons to want the change.”

“Even I have to admit that it’s not an unreasonable one,” Dr. Nestle said.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the health advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, said he thought the term “high-fructose corn syrup” had misled many into thinking the sweetener was composed mainly of fructose, a simple sugar found in honey and fruit.

“Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same,’’ said Dr. Jacobson, who has a doctorate in microbiology. “I don’t know if ‘corn sugar’ is the best term, but it’s better than ‘high-fructose corn syrup.’ ”

High-fructose corn syrup, which came into widespread use in the 1970s, isn’t particularly high in fructose, but was so named to distinguish it from ordinary, glucose-containing corn syrup, according to a report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (also known as table sugar) contain about the same amount of glucose and fructose. In fact, one commonly used version of the ingredient known as HFCS-42 actually contains less fructose (42 percent) than table sugar, which has 50 percent fructose, according to the report.

“The name is confusing, and consumers don’t understand that it has the same calories as sugar,” said Ms. Erickson, of the Corn Refiners Association. “They also think it’s sweeter tasting. That’s why the alternate name provides clarity for consumers when it comes to the ingredient composition and helps them better understand what’s in their foods.”

Table sugar comes primarily from sugar cane or sugar beets. High-fructose corn syrup is made essentially by soaking corn kernels to extract corn starch, and using enzymes to turn the glucose in the starch into fructose. The ingredient is a favorite of food makers for practical reasons. Compared with sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t mask flavors, has a lower freezing point and retains moisture better, which is useful in making foods like chewy granola bars. And because the corn crop in the United States is heavily subsidized, high-fructose corn syrup is also cheap. As a result, it’s now used in so many foods, from crackers to soft drinks, that it has become one of the biggest sources of calories in the American diet.

But the public perception of high-fructose corn syrup as unhealthful has prompted many food companies to stop using it in their products, including Hunt’s Ketchup, Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice and Wheat Thins crackers.

The F.D.A. has six months to respond to the name-change petition. If the agency accepts it, the decision on whether to allow the name “corn sugar” on food labels may take another 12 to 18 months.

Although food label changes aren’t common, the F.D.A. has allowed name changes in the past. The ingredient first called “low erucic acid rapeseed oil” was changed to “canola oil” in the 1980s. More recently, the F.D.A. allowed prunes to be called “dried plums.”

“It’s rare that food ingredient labels are changed, and when they are it’s always been to provide clarity to consumers,” Ms. Erickson said. “This is a classic case for consumers to better understand an ingredient.”

Updated Sept. 15 This story has been updated to include a response from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. A version of this story appeared on page B1 of the New York edition.

This would be another tragedy of false claims and adversting. High Fructose corn syrup is a manufactured derived chemically engineered product. It is not naturally made, and contains different metabolic structures of fructrose, dextrose, sucrose.

Our bodies systems metabalize these very differently, in blood, or in livers.

We as a nation are FAT enough.

Now, after years of word of mouth efforts, HIGH FRUCTOSE corn syrup is being VOTED OUT by consumers. Sorry producers

It is not laughable, but treasonous, in fact that Producers who decry government oversight and regulation and want less, now want the government to take away the publics right to know and decide in the free market by hiding behind a government name-change, allowing FALSE advertising

No, the purpose is not to help the consumer. The purpose is to help food manufacturers make more money by using a govt subsidized ingredient which has been shown to be unhealthy for people. Now that the public has finally learned to avoid it, they must change the name. The purpose is to further confuse the consumer. It is the oldest trick in the book.

I agree there is no real difference between table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. However, eating too much sugar whether it is in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, table or even too much fruit juice, will lead to weight gain.

Every idiotic food manufacturer when it wants to deceive the customer dumps a few barrels of High Fructose Corn Syrup into the concoction it foists upon the general public—just like deceiving children with candy. Thus everything we consume sickeningly, unnaturally, and chemically sweet. Now changing the name to deceive the public better? This is an idea to increase the sales of this essentially unhealthy (it contributes NOTHING of nutritional value to the consumer’s health) but hidden ingredient Why don’t they call it essence of Brussels sprouts and broccoli, it would help!

Sugar is sugar. The psuedoscience and the gibberish (“It is not naturally made, and contains different metabolic structures of fructrose, dextrose, sucrose”) is just patent nonsense.

Frankly, calling it corn sugar would in many ways be more honest because, as the article says (and which is worth reading before issuing the usual tired science-free manifestos), HFCS often contains as much sucrose as fructose.

Bottom line: it’s all sugar, so why not call it sugar? The goal is to cut back on sugar consumption, not on just HFCS. The confusion over this issue is a reason why PepsiCo can sell “throwback” Pepsi and Mountain Dew sweetened with sugar, in a subtle attempt to suggest that this is a better, “special” formula.

Commenter #4 has this just right–look out for sugar, and try to cut back. Now if I didn’t have a sweet tooth, this would be so easy….

Is it okay to eat honey? Honey has just as much fructose as high fructose corn syrup. I’ve heard that honey is very good for you because “the sugar is predigested by the bees.” How could the high fructose of honey be good and the high fructose of corn syrup be no good? I’m curious. Please tell me.
FROM TPP — Assuming you aren’t allergic to honey, it’s of course okay to eat it, just like it’s okay to eat other sugars. But if you eat so much honey that you consume more calories than you burn, then honey consumption will lead to weight gain just like any other sugar. Just like high fructose corn syrup or table sugar, honey is mostly glucose and fructose. That said, honey also has other components and it can be highly variable, depending on the bees that make it and where they’ve been. The glycemic index of honey, which essentially measures how quickly your body uses the sugar, also varies depending on the botanical source. Unlike traditional sugars, honey contains trace amounts of nutrients, minerals, amino acids, polyphenols etc. To learn more about honey, I suggest the paper “Honey for Nutrition and Health: A Review.” It was published by the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. I couldn’t find a funding source but the authors are from the Swiss Bee Research Center in Switzerland,

Dumbing down a name isn’t clarification, its obscuring the fact, or in other words its tantamount to lying. Glad to see High Fructose Corn Syrup is on the run. Sorry to hear that the FDA is considering abetting this attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Guess the ad campaign by the High Fructose Corn Syrup that tried to play up on the ignorance of people back-fired. One thing I liked about this article, I now know I wish to avoid things with Canola Oil too.

Anyone who has drunk soda flavored with cane sugar knows there is a difference in taste.

Why is it that the human nose is considered the most sophisticated instrument for testing Gulf seafood for oil (this is true!), but we don’t recognize that humans might be able to distinguish between sugar and HFCS?

Everybody knows it has nothing to do with helping a poor confused population, and all to do with trying to revamp HFCS bad (and deservedly so) image. It’s marketing–plain and simple. Hopefully, the FDA won’t buy into this–but I don’t have a lot of hope in the FDA.

Maybe cigarettes should be renamed as Metabolism Enhancers?

Thing is–educated consumers won’t be misled, and those who aren’t very proactive, may not figure it out as quick–but the word will get around.

Once again the FDA is on the side of the manufacturers: if something has a bad reputation, then conceal its presence from consumers. HFCS may be the same as table sugar “in terms of health” (as the article says, research is inconclusive) but to many of us it certainly doesn’t taste as good, and in baked goods it generates a fake chewiness with which preservative-laden products of a certain age can attempt to imitate freshness. The use of HFCS also promotes the trend in which US agriculture produces a few varieties of corn and soybeans to the exclusion of everything else, increasing the danger that a single pathogen could wipe out a large fraction of the industry. So it’s not irrational to elect to avoid HFCS. If the FDA makes it harder for consumers to make that choice, that’s another piece of evidence (along with its behavior in the controversies involving BPA, Vioxx, salmonella-infected eggs, and so on) that it’s time to abolish the agency and start over with a new regulator.
FROM TPP — To clarify, it’s just a petition. The FDA hasn’t ruled yet, nor will they for quite a while.

Sugar is sugar and we should all eat less of it. So long as the wording used still indicates that it is sugar, the consumer can still figure it out. I’d be more concerned if they were trying to hide the word sugar but my guess is they want a phrase that sounds more organic for marketing purposes. The current mythology they are developing that processed foods are good for you because they contain servings of vegetables must be working. I want the government to keep an critical eye on this for that reason most of all.

George Jackson you are quite the melodramatic. How can you say this is false advertising when the article itself says that corn sugar is not particularly high in fructose? Logic would suggest that if we ban this ingredient then it will only be replaced with some other sweetener that, when consumed in excess, will have the same results. Focus your energy on the real problem in this country which is the lack of moderation in food intake and lack of exercise instead of trying to ban happy meals or whatever else is on your hit list.

Like those who are guzzling soft drinks and eating mega-muffins even care about what they are consuming and what it is called. And like those who are careful about HFCS and fat and other junk, are going to be taken in and suddenly embrace corn syrup.

Reminds me of all the hoopla around NYC requiring chains to post calorie counts. Those that already avoided grande iced hazelnut spiced cappuccinos, got confirmation of their unease about the stuff, and avoided it even more, and the rest clearly couldn’t care less.

America and its complete and total faith in marketing. We fall for our own BS. Oh well, at least all this name changing will create some jobs.